> it would be better if programmers read deliberate instances of UB as if they literally said "std::unreachable()"
Except that isn't true.
There are basically two kinds of undefined behavior.
The first is undefinable behavior, the kind that easily goes disastrously wrong, like writing to random memory locations.
The second is incidentally undefined behavior, something where there just isn't enough implementation consensus for the standard to settle on it, like realloc(p, 0).
There's no standard terminology I'm aware of to distinguish the two. But the distinction exists.
And where programmers read deliberate instances of UB, it's usually the latter, e.g., writing directly to an address memory mapped to device I/O in that particular environment.
In Coders at Work, Peter Seibel quotes Jamie Zawinski as saying that certain Netscape acquirees were people for whom "cross-platform means both Windows 3.1 and Windows 95."
I find that there are domains where LLMs are much faster and more skilled than I am, particularly in extremely well-documented but technical and complicated, but a lot of domains where they cannot do anything at all (mostly novel issues, weird architecture issue resolution, etc.).
Building a basic X11 window manager is almost a one shot prompt.
Modifying a UI toolkit to make it work with MSAA/IA2 is simply not possible.
There's a lot of room for deep work left... for now.
When you say this is simply not possible you sparked my interest. I would be curious to chat about your approach?
If I were trying to accomplish this particular goal I would first consider what the agent could see. In particular does it have an accessibility inspector of some kind? or even NVDA hooked up with NVDA Remote so that it can actually see the implicit a11y tree for the toolkit it is working on? My email is in my profile and I would love to chat about this.
All of the science supports permanent daylight time.
Even this article, while stating the opposite conclusion, directly scientifically supports permanent daylight time as beneficial for most people.
It points out sunrise being at 0751 versus 0851 for Toronto. That's the anticipated sunrise time on 1 January 2027. The anticipated sunset time is 1651.
That means that someone working in a cubicle for a standard 0800-1700 schedule will get 9 minutes of possible daylight under winter time, versus 51 minutes under daylight time (sunrise 0851, sunset 1751).
Lack of sunlight leads to terrible circadian rhythms. There is absolutely zero scientific support for the proposition that nine minutes of daylight is healthier for our circadian rhythms than fifty-one minutes of daylight. No person could possibly argue such a thing in good faith.
(Also, I have a terminology quibble with "Standard Time," since Daylight Time is the actual standard, and we observe it eight months of the year.)
> Even this article, while stating the opposite conclusion, directly scientifically supports permanent daylight time as beneficial for most people.
From the published paper:
> Findings suggested that pDST and pST offered health advantages compared with the current twice-yearly clock changes, but the health benefits of pDST were lower than those of pST by a third. Notably, the comparative benefits of pST were greatest in northern regions of the continental US, which are similar to the latitudes in which most people in Canada reside.
The data in that article support the opposite conclusion.
The reasoning the article takes to reach its incorrect conclusion is plainly erroneous. For example, it reasons that "Northern latitudes have later onset of winter sunrise and higher prevalence of SAD, with the latter increasing by 0.2% per 1° increase in latitude," ignoring that northern latitudes also have less sunlight overall.
> […] ignoring that northern latitudes also have less sunlight overall.
It does not ignore the fewer hours: it prioritizes them towards the morning, where it is more important for circadian rhythm reasons.
It even mentions public dislike of the lack of morning light in the most recent large-scale pDST experiment in a northern-latitude country
> Russia moved to pDST in 2011. Public dissatisfaction grew rapidly, particularly in northern regions, where winter morning darkness was even more prolonged, with critics citing disrupted biological rhythms, morning travel risks, and effects on daily functioning. The policy was reversed in 2014.[15]
See also comments with link dumps of position statements of various chronobiologist and sleep research societies:
If the work schedule should change, that can be done in either case of the time adopted and the debate would not matter. But with the current schedule, daylight time savings makes much more sense. Where I live in deep winter you just don't see any light at all if you work a normal schedule. If there was daylight savings in the winter instead, you could at least get some light after work.
The studies are saying it is more important for you to get that limited daylight before work rather than after. It's much better for kids sleep and school for them to walk to school in the daylight.
Right, so let’s change expectations for what a “normal” schedule should be. Perhaps stock market, banking, school, and government hours could change and this would be enough to move everyone else.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
What possible meaning could the phrase "noon happens at noon" have? That's tautological and meaningless.
And if your solution requires a wholly independent, newly built mass coordination mechanism rather than just a minor tweak to the existing one, then I think the burden you bear for arguing your position is extremely high.
My post did not ignore the position of the sun. Indeed, it's governed by it.
I am not interested in whatever you've got going on right now. Being dishonest about others' positions is bizarre. Refusing to clarify your own is bizarre. Let me know when you're willing to engage in good faith.
It is completely ridiculous to say that someone working 9-5 doesn't see any daylight during that period. Go for a walk at lunch time.
Conversely, getting up in the pitch dark and leaving the house in the pitch dark when the sun isn't going to rise for another hour is a horrible prospect and I hope I never have that inflicted on me. The evidence in the article is clear: our bodies need light in the morning more than we need it in the evening. Yes, winter sucks in northern latitudes, but we've just got to make use of the little daylight as best as we can. The flip side is by using DST we get these lovely long evenings in the summer.
You can have (almost) permanent daylight time - you just have to relocate regularly between (let's say) Iceland and the southern tip of South America. Or even further north/south for even more daylight (albeit even lower temperatures).
It appears you're calling something a scam because an early alpha version was early alpha quality. If so, that would be unprofessional and inflammatory.
I'm open to being wrong. So again, can you explain what you mean?
They haven't had a stable 1.0 release yet, but they've had many pre-1.0 releases. It's not some personal experiment that's been sitting in the dev's Github that people are piling onto; the author has gone out of their way to promote it, beg for donations, and lash out at any criticisms.
The issue has never been the quality of the language per se, the issue has been 1) wildly misrepresenting the quality of the language in the present tense; 2) not even having any kind of a realistic roadmap towards achieving the kind of outsized and implausible claims about the quality of the language; and 3) using these outsized, implausible misrepresentations as a way of soliciting hype and funding for the author.
For a long time they did weekly releases, which explains the “hundreds” of releases. It looks like they have made enough progress to move to periodic point releases. (I should probably take another look at it.)
I’m not qualified to judge the language as a whole, at least until I use it for something, but it does have some interesting features. I used to follow their progress, but it’s clear that the pace of development is very slow, like many other niche langs.
Defamation? The author's responses and complete lack of honesty certainly made it look like a scam.
The author listed feature after feature that were unfulfilled. Scam is being fairly kind to the project, I thought the guy was the worst kind of liar. You can check out any of the earlier threads on HN to find out for yourself.
It isn't that it was early, it's that it advertised itself to be what it was not. You defending it isn't doing anybody any favors as this is all public record and you're just standing up for a dev that doesn't deserve it
The scammy part was definitely making all of the claims as if they were already true. A lot of people sincerely believed it. My recollection was that it took months before some of this was fixed to explain that it wasn't available yet, and then more to explain that it hadn't actually been done yet.
There were some really crazy ones, like that it could convert entire codebases from C++ to V and then compile them some multiple of times faster and make them memory safe. How? I'd love to know.
The author to me seems like they are not attempting to scam people, but it's hard to ignore that they were collecting money, from people who thought they had already accomplished these things, because the person collecting it absolutely appeared to be claiming it.
Now doing that once and going "oops, my bad" would be one thing. There would be no controversy. However, over time it has proven to be a bit of a behavior pattern, which is confusing because the author does appear to be producing things that I think are interesting. Just... often buried under some hyperbole.
I have this amazing new thing I'm making, nothing like it, better than everything else. Here's a prototype that does none of that and is _barely_ functional. Care to invest $2000? If so, do I have a bridge to show you...
Be serious. 88% of buyers chose something they don’t want? Apple is saying, “actually we hate money, so we’re not going to make a model that people want to buy”?
Why is it so hard for people to accept that maybe their preference isn’t the common one?
Your command is not engaging in good faith. You seem to believe somehow if Apple produced a higher end, smaller size phone it would magically outsell the higher end larger phone, with no evidence to suggest that.
The market, in both Android and iOS land has dictated larger phones are more favored. This is abundantly clear with the advent of "foldable" phone sector. On paper foldable phones make no sense, they are less resistant, more expensive and use a plastic screen, yet the market is growing year on year.
I totally respect someone's opinion on a small or large phone, but even the largest iPhone is fairly easy to hold and operate using one hand. I don't have big hands.
Literally all available evidence directly contradicts you. There is not a single iPhone generation in which larger iPhones outsold smaller iPhones of comparable capabilities.
As was clearly, painstaking explained to you already, using easy-to-understand language, the 4.7" iPhones outsold the 5.5" iPhones. And today 6.1" iPhones outsell the 6.7" iPhones. Every single time, without fail, smaller iPhones have outsold and continue to outsell larger iPhones of similar capability. This is an objective and indisputable fact.
I don’t find “nobody wants large phones” while showing that the vast majority of buyers are willingly choosing large phones to be in particularly good faith to start with.
> the vast majority of buyers are willingly choosing large phones
This is patently false. It is widely known to be patently false. I cannot understand why you would confidently assert something commonly known to be patently false.
This discussion isn't about people preferring the Pro to the Pro Max. That would be a pretty uninteresting discussion: they make both, buy the one you want. End of story. People are complaining because they want something that's not on offer anymore: something around the size of an iPhone 4 or SE. And, we are told, lots of people want it, but for some reason all of the smartphone manufacturers have banded together to refuse to make such a thing, because... well, the reason is never explained. But it's definitely a conspiracy, and not because people don't actually buy them in sufficient quantity.
"iPhone 16 still leads the smartphone pack" has nothing to do with that. That's a phone that is, according to the complainers, still too big. This is a 6.1" screen. That's vast compared to the 3.5" screen of an iPhone 4, and substantially larger than the 5.4" display of an iPhone 13 mini that many commenters here express a longing for.
If you're arguing that people prefer the smaller of Apple's two large phones, you're in the wrong place. If you're arguing that people prefer phones smaller than what Apple currently makes, you're using the wrong argument. Either way, you're way off track here, and your attitude towards it is highly uncalled for.
Except that isn't true.
There are basically two kinds of undefined behavior.
The first is undefinable behavior, the kind that easily goes disastrously wrong, like writing to random memory locations.
The second is incidentally undefined behavior, something where there just isn't enough implementation consensus for the standard to settle on it, like realloc(p, 0).
There's no standard terminology I'm aware of to distinguish the two. But the distinction exists.
And where programmers read deliberate instances of UB, it's usually the latter, e.g., writing directly to an address memory mapped to device I/O in that particular environment.
reply